FCC seeking comments on allowing Garmin to produce GMRS/FRS with data beacon. Speak up to STOP this.

[jiminpgh]

Garmin would like to amend Part 95 to allow data bursts EVERY FIVE SECONDS between their proposed new radios. I suspect this would be some sort of location service between portables. The constant data pinging between units would be very difficult for a regular user to monitor a channel. It also has the potential to endlessly key-up repeaters.

The FCC is asking for your input on this matter. Grass root input from users does make a difference. Foolish proposals from radio companies have been defeated in the past. Submitting your comments is easy. Attached is the public notice for comments, DA-24-36A1. It describes what Garmin proposes. The DA 24-36 is template that can be used but is not required.

Use your own words to point out the following potential harm this could cause to your operation:
Digital emissions are incompatible with conventional FM.
Periodic data bursts and it's noise is loud, annoying, distracting and discourages monitoring for voice calls.
The GMRS service will be degraded with this rule. I have a significant investment in GMRS equipment that would be harmed.

Write your comments and opinion on a .doc or PDF document. When you are finished, upload your document here:
ECFS
The proceeding filing is 24-7
Type of filing is "Comment"

You CAN make a difference in this matter. The FCC wants to hear from you.
The deadline for comments is Feb 12.
Please comment to prevent endless data bursts on GMRS.

Thank you,
Jim

 

[RandyKnowles]

Garmin would like to amend Part 95 to allow data bursts EVERY FIVE SECONDS between their proposed new radios. I suspect this would be some sort of location service between portables. The constant data pinging between units would be very difficult for a regular user to monitor a channel. It also has the potential to endlessly key-up repeaters.

The FCC is asking for your input on this matter. Grass root input from users does make a difference. Foolish proposals from radio companies have been defeated in the past. Submitting your comments is easy. Attached is the public notice for comments, DA-24-36A1. It describes what Garmin proposes. The DA 24-36 is template that can be used but is not required.

Use your own words to point out the following potential harm this could cause to your operation:
Digital emissions are incompatible with conventional FM.
Periodic data bursts and it's noise is loud, annoying, distracting and discourages monitoring for voice calls.
The GMRS service will be degraded with this rule. I have a significant investment in GMRS equipment that would be harmed.

Write your comments and opinion on a .doc or PDF document. When you are finished, upload your document here:
ECFS
The proceeding filing is 24-7
Type of filing is "Comment"

You CAN make a difference in this matter. The FCC wants to hear from you.
The deadline for comments is Feb 12.
Please comment to prevent endless data bursts on GMRS.

Thank you,
Jim

Jim - You are absolutely right on this, if manufacturers are allowed to continue to take bites out of the GMRS and FRS spectrum for their own proprietary uses, pretty soon there will be nothing left of our radio services. Digital transmissions will infect channels with intolerable noise, and people will quickly tire of listening to such junk and stop listening for voice calls. Digital sharing on conventional FM voice channels will never work!

I URGE EVERYONE CONCERNED ABVOUT THE FUTURE OF FMRS AND/OR FRS TO WRITE COMMENTS OPPOSI)NG THIS FREQUENCY GRAB BY GARMIN.

Our local GMRS public service organization has filed Comments with the FCC as well as a Motion to Extend Time for Filing to allow for others to do so. I am attaching these documents as samples for format - use your own thoughts and words, but PLEASE FILE SOMETHING. The FCC web link to do so is:

ECFS

Federal Communication Commission Electronic Comment Filing System

www.fcc.gov

Any questions feel free to e-mail me: Randy@NSEA.com - thanks! P. Randall Knowles, KAA 8142 (oldest GRMS Call Sign in the USA)

 

[Hans13]

It also has the potential to endlessly key-up repeaters.

Firstly, I haven't read the proposal yet but unless they are asking to be able to transmit the data on the repeater input channels, keying up the repeaters is not something that is going to happen. Secondly, if the proposal is for allowing transmission on the repeater inputs and if a Garmin unit continually keyed up a repeater, that would be grounds for the repeater owner to make an FCC complaint. The GPS location information in the data burst should make it easy to pin-point the alleged violator's location.

 

[kayn1n32008]

Digital emissions are incompatible with conventional FM.
Periodic data bursts and it's noise is loud, annoying, distracting and discourages monitoring for voice calls.

PL/DPL...

 

[Hans13]

PL/DPL...

Yep. Grandfathered licenses, FRS, and GMRS all share the service equally. This would be no different.

 

[jiminpgh]

PL/DPL...

Yes PL/DPL will filter out the data bursts. I listen on carrier squelch.
The channel should be monitored CSQ before transmitting to prevent interference to other users.
The mic hang up box did this automatically. That was a long time ago.
Data bursts will raise the noise floor with or without PL/DPL/Channel Guard, etc. etc.
Data bursts are OK on a dedicated channel.
The GMRS/FRS are shared channels that are presently analog.

While my point on keying repeaters was a bit dubious, the data burst could occur anywhere, including input channels.

Please submit a comment to protect GMRS/FRS from chaos.

 

[Hans13]

The channel should be monitored CSQ before transmitting to prevent interference to other users.

I don't encounter repeaters monitoring before transmitting even though most repeaters are capable of doing so. Busy channel lockout is also available on a lot of handsets. There is nothing preventing Garmin from making that feature part of the data bursts.

Back to repeaters, they have no priority (all frequency priority is the same in GMRS/FRS/grandfathered licenses absent emergency traffic). So, why are repeaters given a pass stepping on users who might be simplex on the outputs? The priorities are all the same and repeaters can enable BCLO.

 

[kayn1n32008]

I listen on carrier squelch.

Sounds like a you problem then

 

[mastr]

I don't encounter repeaters monitoring before transmitting even though most repeaters are capable of doing so...

...why are repeaters given a pass stepping on users who might be simplex on the outputs? The priorities are all the same and repeaters can enable BCLO.

Please site a specific model of repeater that has BCLO capability by monitoring its output frequency.

 

[W8UU]

From Garmin's FCC Waiver Request: (page 12)

C. Garmin Proposes for the Commission to Adopt Limited Conditions.

Garmin proposes for the Commission to impose only the following conditions on any grant of Garmin’s waiver request:

1) Transmitters operating under this waiver must not be capable of modification by end users to adjust the frequencies of operation.

2) Operation under the waiver is restricted to the 462 MHz interstitial channels.

3) Digital data transmissions may not be sent more than once every five seconds, and each transmission must be no more than 50 ms in duration.

4) To ensure digital data transmissions only occur when a channel is clear of voice communications, unless the user is determined to be experiencing a safety of life situation, Garmin’s GMRS device must employ a LBT protocol that would suspend digital data transmissions whenever the hand-held radio detects that another GMRS user is using the channel for voice communications until the channel has been clear of any voice communications for at least 30 seconds.

Garmin’s proposed limits on its device’s data transmission duration and the LBT protocol will be sufficient to protect against harmful interference or excessive congestion, if any, to voice communications in the GMRS channels.

In addition, Garmin’s GMRS devices require a far narrower waiver than Midland’s device. For these reasons, the conditions proposed by Midland for its use case
are not useful or warranted in connection with Garmin’s waiver request.

So ... only for portable radios using less than 5 watts RF power and only on the 462 interstitial (FRS) channels.

Not on GMRS-only frequencies. Not on the 467 MHZ repeater inputs.

Did y'all actually read this thing before commenting?

I don't like frequency creep on GMRS by business interests but I'm not sold that this is unreasonable.

 

[Hans13]

Please site a specific model of repeater that has BCLO capability by monitoring its output frequency.

No. Not my circus and certainly not my monkeys to CITE.

All of the repeaters I have encountered have BCLO, including my Vertex VXR-7000U. Many mobiles have BCLO so that option does exist when they are joined into a repeater. There may be some that don't but then they would not be able to comply with a strict reading of Part 95 by not ensuring a clear channel before transmitting; they would be causing interference. Again, repeaters have no more priority than the lowly bubble pack. If the regulations have changed, feel free to show us where to read it.

To be clear, I have no issue with Garmin's request here. I'm not bothered by data bursts as a high profile busy repeater can monopolize an output channel being used for simplex. What do you think the odds of all high power simplex channels being bombarded by location data bursts every five seconds? It's is extremely remote. I would be happier if BCLO was required for the data bursts but not going to be salty if it isn't.

ETA: Thanks to W8UU's informative post, it appears that there is BCLO requirement in the proposal.

Garmin’s GMRS device must employ a LBT protocol that would suspend digital data transmissions whenever the hand-held radio detects that another GMRS user is using the channel for voice communications until the channel has been clear of any voice communications for at least 30 seconds.

 

[Hans13]

From Garmin's FCC Waiver Request: (page 12)



So ... only for portable radios using less than 5 watts RF power and only on the 462 interstitial (FRS) channels.

Not on GMRS-only frequencies. Not on the 467 MHZ repeater inputs.

Did y'all actually read this thing before commenting?

I don't like frequency creep on GMRS by business interests but I'm not sold that this is unreasonable.

Thank you for posting that information. I admittedly did not read the proposal yet and stated so in my first post. This quoted portion below tells me that BCLO is required. That and interstitial only channels allowed satisfies me that this is a non-issue.

"Garmin’s GMRS device must employ a LBT protocol that would suspend digital data transmissions whenever the hand-held radio detects that another GMRS user is using the channel for voice communications until the channel has been clear of any voice communications for at least 30 seconds."

 

[Hans13]

While my point on keying repeaters was a bit dubious, the data burst could occur anywhere, including input channels.

Please submit a comment to protect GMRS/FRS from chaos.

How do you figure that the data burst could occur anywhere? Approved radios would almost certainly be locked down to transmitting only on the appropriate channels with BCLO before the FCC would certify them.

I generally don't comment on agency rule making as I'm not a fan of encouraging bureaucratic hydras. However, since it seems like there is going to be some unfounded pearl clutching in comments on the rule change, I am now highly motivated to respond to the rule making in favor of the rule change.

 

[weyforthr]

Mission creep?

 

[Hans13]

Please site a specific model of repeater that has BCLO capability by monitoring its output frequency.

I was tired and misread that as "Please site (sic) specific models of repeaters that have BCLO capability by monitoring it's output frequency." instead of "a", as in one, specific model. Obviously, I was not willing to go research a bunch of repeaters just to post a list here.

My Vertex VXR-7000U is one that can do it. I had recently looked at the ubiquitous Motorola RICK manual and it also had BCLO capability. Some might call it TX Inhibit. The Vertex and the Motorola mentioned both call it BCLO.

 

[mastr]

Thank you. Does the Vertex repeater actually have receive capability to monitor the output frequency and enact BCLO when there is a simplex user on said output frequency? Since "... why are repeaters given a pass stepping on users who might be simplex on the outputs?.." was your complaint, that would appear to be required to solve the issue. If it will, that is much easier than adding an auxiliary receiver and the associated changes to do so with other brands.

 

[rfburnz]

Nothing new, just not auto beacon, PTT only.

Garmin Rino® 700 | Handheld Two-way Radio

Combining map-guided trail navigation with 2-way radio communication, the Garmin Rino 700 handheld brings a whole new level of confidence to your outdoor adventures.

www.garmin.com

 

[K6GBW]

If they want to transmit data then the FCC needs to give them a frequency for data. Transmitting data bursts on voice channels will significantly impact the usability of GMRS for it's primary purpose. Imagine being on an off-road run and hearing little burst of data constantly. It's just silly. Garmin is just looking for a new "feature" to try and sell more radios. They already did this on MURS and now they're being used for driveway monitors, water monitors, and other devices. Here in the L.A. area the MURS frequencies are just a chirping sqwauking mess.

 

[W8UU]

If they want to transmit data then the FCC needs to give them a frequency for data. Transmitting data bursts on voice channels will significantly impact the usability of GMRS for it's primary purpose. Imagine being on an off-road run and hearing little burst of data constantly. It's just silly. Garmin is just looking for a new "feature" to try and sell more radios. They already did this on MURS and now they're being used for driveway monitors, water monitors, and other devices. Here in the L.A. area the MURS frequencies are just a chirping sqwauking mess.

I agree that FRS may be headed into an electronic playground of mixed modes and automated databursts.

My long-standing position on GMRS was to restore some sanity by moving FRS to another group of frequencies (anywhere ... I don't care) then establishing a very simple band plan for GMRS.

Something like:

1. 675 is the call channel and highway help repeater channel with the 141.3 hZ CTCSS tone.
2. The 700 and 725 pairs are for simplex communications. Base to mobile, mobile to mobile, et al. No repeaters.
3. 550, 575, 600, 625, and 650 are repeater frequencies and are coordinated.

NO linked repeaters.

You get 675 and the simplex channels on your license plus a repeater pair if you want it and get the coordination.

Nothing about narrow band or digital. Leave GMRS alone but give simplex operation some basic protections.

 

[FFPM571]

If you have not noticed GMRS has become the New CB radio with the plethora of cheap radios and uneducated users putting up repeaters ...That $35 licesnse fee made it 10X worse also... Now people who cant pass the ham radio test can play ham radio